Lofunzo wrote:IMHO, all politicians do good and bad. As long as there is more good than bad, then . I wouldn't be happy if I was on the median line and I made $36K 1 year and then 8 years later, only made $4K more.

A $4k increase over 8 years is not bad, especially if inflation was reduced. For comparison, the median household income during the Clinton years increased from $38k to $43k which is about a $5K increase. Keep in mind that Reagan had to recover from a depression while Clinton was reaping the benefits of steady growth.

As for Pujols, he's still listed as day to day. They were even thinking about using him in a pinch so maybe he won't go on the DL.

Experience is a hard teacher. She gives the test first, the lesson afterwards.

If you honestly think that Clinton's legacy will be stronger than Reagan's, you are fooling yourself. Thus I certainly wouldn't expect any more extensive dialogue than you see here, on the fantasy baseball talk forum cerca 2025

Dr.DooM wrote:-Budget deficit was 2.5% of GDP when he took office, it was 3% when he left.

what was the GDP... i.e. what does the .5% translate to?

Give a man a fish and he'll eat for a day, teach a man to fish and he'll drown because you forgot to teach him to swim.
[url=http://www.indra.com/8ball/front.html]Invaluable Fantasy Baseball Resource[/url]

If you honestly think that Clinton's legacy will be stronger than Reagan's, you are fooling yourself. Thus I certainly wouldn't expect any more extensive dialogue than you see here, on the fantasy baseball talk forum cerca 2025

I guess I am one of the one's who is fooling myself. Clinton is an economic genious. Reagonomics or should I say "trickle down economics" does not work and did not work. Don't get me wrong, he was a good president and did have a a better foreign policy than the clown that we have today but when you talk about economics, Clinton will be remembered.

And when you talk about GDP, etc..did you also notice:

"In The 1980s saw the income of the richest five percent increase by one-third, while the income of the poorest 10 percent fell by one-tenth. In this period, the income share of the poorest fifth fell to the lowest it had been since the 1950s, and the income share of the middle class fell to its lowest since World War II. The richest fifth, meanwhile, amassed greater wealth than ever before, receiving nearly 50 percent of America's income."